There have been a very large number of prior proposals for devices intended to be worn by females who suffer from urinary incontinence. Some of these prior proposed female incontinence devices have involved the provision of a support structure which is inserted in the vagina to hold the device in place. Examples of this kind of this kind of device are shown in U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,776,235 to Ratcliffe et al., 3,661,155 to Linden, and 3,683,914 to Crowley. In some cases it is intended to obtain close engagement with, and possibly even sealing at, the immediate surround of the urethral orifice. Devices having a substantial support structure within the vagina are often uncomfortable to wear, and the intended sealing at the urethral orifice is often not effective. Anatomical variations from person to person mean that any effective device must be tailored to the individual user.
Other devices proposed in the prior art are of the kind which are brought into engagement with the external urine-genital region, there being a sealing rim or pad intended to prevent escape of urine between the device and its wearer. Examples of this kind of device are shown in U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,349,768 to Keane and 3,512,185 to Ellis and U.K. Patent Specification Nos. 1,193,261 to Dent, 1,144,483 to Vincent, and 1,422,638 to Lowthian. Person-to-person variations also give rise to difficulty here, and it has proved difficult to obtain effective sealing in practice (despite the claims made in the prior art documents) especially when the device is being worn by an active person.